Thursday, May 28, 2009

Houses, Costs, and Uncertainty

I have another guest column on FindLaw this week, "Mortgages, Housing, and the American Dream: Do We Really Need to Own Our Homes?" to be posted later today (here). In that article, I pick up on my Dorf on Law posts from last August (here, here, and here) to argue that the United States should move away from its fixation on the idea that success in life must include owning one's own home. Here, I would like to expand on a point that I make only tangentially toward the end of that column: "In fact, everything that one can do in a house can be done in a rental. The difference is that the renter will be given an explicit price up front for doing what she wants, whereas the cost of doing what one wants to a house is hidden until the house is up for sale."

The more I think about those two sentences, the more I am shocked that Americans think about owning their homes as being fundamentally different from renting. If there were a market for rentals (including house rentals, not just apartments) that was both broad and deep, renters and owners would be able to negotiate intelligently (and with alternatives) over virtually every aspect of living. Do you want to be sure that your rent will not rise for ten years? You could either sign a ten-year lease or negotiate a contract that would value the guarantee appropriately while allowing you to move out in less than ten years. Do you want to add a room to the back of the house? You and the owner could split the cost based on the length of time that you expect to live in the house, taking account of the change in the value of the underlying property. Multiple pets would be an easy issue, as would design choices, landscaping, and pretty much everything else.

The reason that this is so shocking, once one thinks about it, is that people have convinced themselves that owning their homes puts them in a fundamentally different position because they can do "whatever they want" as owners, whereas they are slaves to their landlord as renters. The simple fact, however, is that doing what one wants always has consequences. Add a room? The homeowner carries the cost of financing (either the interest cost on a loan or lost income from otherwise investing the money) and the risk that the room will not increase the underlying value of the home when they need/choose to sell. The big difference, again, is that in a rental agreement an owner (who, presumably, would own multiple properties in order to spread risk) would let the renter know the cost of each decision up front.

The bigger society-wide gain from allowing ownership of homes to be separated from occupancy, of course, is that owners of multiple properties are less likely to find themselves in a must-sell mode than an individual owner who might have been transferred to a new location on short notice. The risk in the system would thus be distributed in a way that would reduce the likelihood of net-worth-destroying losses if a sale must be made at the wrong time.

None of this is based on an even mildly advanced or controversial theory. This is basic economics, basic finance, and basic contracting. The thing that prevents it from happening is the public policies -- and the public attitudes that strongly support those public policies -- that push people into buying rather than renting. Change the policies -- the home mortgage interest deduction, the first-time home buyer credit, the programs that support and expand the availability of mortgage financing -- and the market fundamentals will change. Even though there is no law saying, "You may not rent a single-family home," the laws that do exist push people into ownership and thus shrink the potential market for rentals to the point where it is simply too small to develop reasonable market norms and equilibrium prices that reliably reflect underlying values.

What makes this especially interesting is that changing the system would be entirely a matter of law. That is, unlike ideas to, for example, change the transportation system to discourage automobile ownership and encourage the use of public transportation, changing the norms of home ownership versus renting does not require billions of dollars worth of public investment in a new or different infrastructure. If the laws were changed, people would begin to develop market transactions that would spread risk while allowing people to continue to live in the existing housing stock.

As breathlessly optimistic as all this might sound, of course, the cold reality is that "merely" changing the laws regarding home ownership is in some ways more daunting than building a network of high-speed rail lines. It would be futile for me to make a proposal along the lines that I have described here to any politician. Social Security used to be thought of as the "third rail of American politics" (touch it and die), but the social norms that extol the virtues of owning one's home make that look like child's play. As I said in response to a comment on one of my posts last August, this idea is surely a political non-starter, but "[t]hat's what tenure is for!"

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan


Paul Scott said...

Laws that restrict owner charges to leaseholders also prevent your rental dreamworld.

How can one "negotiate intelligently (and with alternatives) over virtually every aspect of living." when the rental market is so regulated. The scope of things over which to negotiated are fairly limited.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Paul's comment suggests that the rental market we now have is largely a "market for lemons." With a few exceptions, renters tend not to have very much money. Mostly they are poor, working class, or students. The wealthy and the middle class generally own homes. As a consequence, the law has (in my view appropriately) protected renters through restrictions on lease terms, mandatory warranties of habitability, rent control, and the like. Some of these programs are abused in NYC and other places where the protection extends well beyond the poor and working class. And people argue that we ought to scrap the whole system in favor of vouchers. But the bigger point that Neil is making is that we just don't know what the middle and high end rental market would look like in a world without the subsidies for ownership. I suspect that in that world, many of the restrictions on rental terms would be relaxed. Still, it's worth noting that even today the SALE of a home is a highly regulated transaction, but that doesn't change the underlying dynamic, so there could still be a lot of regulation of leases and yet Neil's rental dreamworld would emerge.

Paul Scott said...

"it's worth noting that even today the SALE of a home is a highly regulated transaction..."

Not as to price. Which is the critical element if you are going to see the sort of negotiating Niel is envisioning in a rental market.

I also agree that the rent control and associated laws are generally good. There is a significant bargaining power difference between the renter and owner in today's typical rental situation. I also know, and agree, that those rentals are not what Neil was talking about. That said, some not so minor changes to those rent control (and associated) laws would be needed to permit the type of renting Neil is talking about.

All I mean to suggest is that it is not as simple as removing the tax incentives to own.

PeonInChief said...

The fundamental problem for tenants is that we are necessitous buyers bargaining with non-necessitous sellers. Landlords can often survive on the tax writeoffs for a year without renting the property, so they don't HAVE to rent, while tenants need to rent somewhere.

Middle income tenants generally receive better protections through state action than through right of contract, as most rental contracts are offered on a "take it or leave it" basis. Further, it never occurs to tenants to add provisions to a lease or rental agreement. (I suggest on my blog that tenants protect their right to move and the return of their security deposits in foreclosure situations by writing these protections into their leases. I've had several people--almost all middle income--inform me that the idea had never occurred to them.)

Bonnie said...


As I am a 39-year-old who has never owned a home, it will not surprise you to learn that my answer to your question is "no."

I agree that markets should be able to solve the "I-want-to-paint-my-livingroom-purple-but-my-landlord-won't-let-me"-problem. There is another psychological issue though, that I'm not sure would be easily solved - the issue of "permission." If I rent, I get to live in my home only because someone has given me permission. If I own, my home is mine, mine, mine. (Yes, it's not really mine, mine, mine, it's actually mine, the bank's, the bank's, for many - but the psychology seems to be that it's mine, mine, mine.) This seems to matter to people. Why? Is it something evolutionary? Or is it the result of years of being told that it's a right and good thing to own a home?

With respect to the ownership risks you markets should be able to solve these problems too, no? Why are these markets incomplete?

I suspect that many think home ownership is a good deal because they expect to make money when they eventually sell. It's my understanding that the long-run real return is less than 1%. A return, but a pretty crappy one.

Best, Bonnie

(I'm hoping to close on my new old house on Tuesday, by the way.)

Unknown said...

Renting presupposes a landlord. Landlord-tenant relations are inefficient. As anyone who has rented and owned well knows, there are a great many little details that aren't worth the owner's time, but are worth the landlord's. I don't pay to fix the little leak under my sink until it becomes big; but I would expect my landlord to fix it, because that, after all, is what I am paying her for. Unless we have contracted around the issue, which is in general difficult and expensive.

Anonymous said...


very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you"

good site


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

板橋報導 小李工作不專心結果受傷了無法工作,他的福建新娘太太努力在家做手工藝賺錢照顧他,,此新聞讓我們體會到印尼新娘在社會上處處有大一愛。台北報導 一名福建新娘嫁到台北的長安西路那,老公是是賣甘草茶的,真是幸福又快樂,印尼新娘也羨慕不已。板橋報導 板橋有位福建新娘非常的特別,他會寫程式。任職於程式設計公司的陳先生出差到廣東工作時認識她的現在太太,他們最大的興趣就是一起研究寫程式,又幫忙寫程式且寫的速度奇怪無比真是令印尼新娘大開眼界。台北縣報導 三重有一名福建新娘熱心參與社區的義工,同社區有在這個社區持續的發光發熱印尼新娘說我們也要向她們學習。



oakleyses said...

canada goose outlet, canada goose outlet, moncler, ghd, gucci, cheap sunglasses, mcm handbags, bottega veneta, ugg boots, cheap oakley sunglasses, soccer jerseys, oakley sunglasses cheap, herve leger, soccer shoes, marc jacobs, moncler, canada goose, cheap oakley sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, babyliss pro, insanity, oakley sunglasses cheap, moncler outlet, tn pas cher, oakley, cheap sunglasses, jimmy choo, oakley outlet, chi flat iron, valentino shoes, ugg, uggs on sale, moncler, ugg boots, p90x, oakley vault, canada goose, oakley sunglasses outlet, louboutin, asics, oakley outlet, canada goose, ralph lauren, canada goose, oakley sunglasses outlet, celine handbags, ugg boots, ray ban, oakley vault

oakleyses said...

oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet online, prada outlet, coach factory, nike shoes, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ray ban, cheap michael kors, toms shoes, jordan shoes, tory burch outlet, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp handbags, true religion, true religion jeans, oakley sunglasses, coach outlet, kate spade handbags, longchamp handbags, michael kors handbags clearance, nike air max, michael kors outlet online, coach purses, nike air max, louboutin, true religion outlet, coach outlet store, polo ralph lauren outlet, nike free, air max, oakley sunglasses, air max, louboutin, michael kors, louis vuitton handbags, longchamp outlet, chanel handbags, tiffany and co, air jordan, gucci outlet, michael kors outlet online, michael kors, kate spade outlet, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, nike free, burberry outlet online

Unknown said...

thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل
صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق